Official Report 400KB pdf
Agenda item 2 concerns the UK Government’s proposals on the BBC memorandum of understanding. I will give a short background explanation of where we are at on the item. It involves consideration of a draft memorandum of understanding—MOU—that sets out a procedure for scrutiny arrangements in relation to the BBC in order that the Scottish Parliament can be consulted during the BBC charter review, which is due to commence shortly.
The MOU arises out of the Smith commission’s recommendation that the Scottish Parliament be consulted on matters pertaining to the BBC that impact on Scotland, notably the BBC charter review in the short term and the BBC’s annual reports and accounts in the future. It is intended that the signatories to the MOU will be the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC.
I emphasise that the draft MOU deals solely with how the BBC will engage with and consult the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in future. It does not deal in any respect with the subject matter of the BBC’s programming or activities or whether broadcasting should be part of any proposal for the further devolution of powers, and that is not the focus of the discussion today.
On 8 June, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs wrote to us setting out the Scottish Government’s views on the draft MOU and suggesting a number of amendments to it. There is a slight anomaly in the letter that the cabinet secretary sent to us, and I ask the clerk to explain that to us.
I am happy to do that, convener. If members have the letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs in front of them and they compare the tracked changes that the Scottish Government is suggesting, they will note that it is slightly different in how it has been marked up. Under
“Commitments:
1. Charter Review”,
it is the third bullet point, which reads
“The Department will consult the Scottish Government on the draft Charter through the process of charter drafting”
that is the significant change and is the new bullet point that the Scottish Government suggests should be inserted into the draft MOU. It is not the one that is indicated above that bullet point.
Also, under
“4. Next Charter”,
there are some suggested changes from the Scottish Government.
Is everyone clear? Okay.
We should also note that responses have been received from the Education and Culture Committee and the Public Audit Committee on the draft MOU. Does Stewart Maxwell want to make any comments at this point?
The cabinet secretary wrote in the same terms to the Education and Culture Committee. We examined the draft memorandum of understanding and the letter from the Government on Tuesday of this week. We took the view, as outlined in our letter to this committee, that our primary aim is to ensure that, as this committee has said, the spirit and substance of the Smith commission should be the underlying principle in whatever is agreed between the two Governments in relation to the memorandum of understanding.
We took no view on whether the original draft or the amendments achieve that, but we noted the Scottish Government’s view that the original did not. Our view is that whatever is agreed must meet the Smith commission guarantees.
We have also had a response from the Public Audit Committee. I ask Stephen Imrie to discuss that, and then I will ask Tavish Scott and Stuart McMillan whether they want to say anything.
I will give the committee a flavour of the comments of the Public Audit Committee, which looked at the MOU on Wednesday of this week. Mr Scott and Mr McMillan are members of that committee and they might wish to comment.
I refer members to two points of substance in the Public Audit Committee’s letter to the committee. First, it suggests that, if the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport or the Foreign Secretary, who have
“the power to give directions as to the information to be given in the report about the finance, administration and work of the BBC”
choose to exercise that power, there should be
“consultation with the Scottish Parliament before any such directions are made.”
The second substantive point from the Public Audit Committee refers to the laying of annual reports and on which days that takes place. The current draft of the MOU says that it should happen
“on the next available sitting day”.
Usually, annual reports from the BBC are produced in July, when the Scottish Parliament is likely to be in recess, so the next available sitting day would be much later in the year, in September. There would therefore be a difference between when the annual report was laid here and when it was laid at Westminster.
The Public Audit Committee suggests that we propose to DCMS a change of wording to
“the next day on which the office of the Clerk is open”,
that office being open through the summer recess. The annual report would therefore be laid here at the same time as at Westminster.
Those are the two suggested changes from the Public Audit Committee. We have not had any comment from the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport on whether it is happy with those amendments or with Ms Hyslop’s suggestions.
10:00
Tavish, do you want to say anything or are you happy with that?
Stephen Imrie has given a very fair account. Colleagues will understand that the Public Audit Committee’s interest is in the data being Scotland-specific, which will help the Parliament to do a more effective job in assessing the BBC’s performance. That was our main point. We also made a couple of technical suggestions about how to improve the process, which Stephen Imrie outlined.
I have nothing to add.
We have the Public Audit Committee’s proposals, which have not yet been considered by DCMS or the Scottish Government because of the timescale that is involved, and the suggestions that have been made by the Scottish Government through the cabinet secretary, which, again, DCMS has not had the opportunity to consider. We are not yet at a point where we can move to agreement on the MOU, because we have still to pull in information from other sources. I suggest that we delay consideration of the MOU until we have obtained comments from both DCMS and the Scottish Government.
Do we have an indication of a likely timescale for that?
The clerks will find out. There may be on-going discussions between DCMS and the Scottish Government about these issues, because the Scottish Government will put its views on where the MOU needs to be adjusted. I hope that we can get views in the next couple of weeks, before we get to the recess, but it really depends on the discussions that are taking place between those other parties coming to a conclusion first.
I thank members for their attendance at today’s meeting. Our next meeting will be on 18 June, when the committee will consider its work programme in relation to the Scotland Bill. At our subsequent meeting on 25 June, the committee expects to hear from both the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Scotland Bill.
So 18 June is just a work programme discussion. It is not David Mundell.
It is not David Mundell. They are both coming on 25 June.
Thank you.
Meeting closed at 10:02.